Slip Op. 06-185



## UNI TED STATES COU

RT OF INTERNATIO

NAL TRADE

____________________________________ : FUJIAMERI CA CORP ORATI ON, : : Plaintiff, :

: Before: M USGRA VE, Jud ge v. : : Court No. 03-00126 TH E U NI TE D ST AT ES, : : De fe nd ant. : ____________________________________: [Defenda nt moved, pursuant to US CI T R. 59 for par tial rehe aringof Court’s dec ision, alleg ing that the c ourt “ov erl oo ke d” a “ ma te ri a l matte r o f l aw o r f a c t.” De fe nd ant c la ime d th a t th e re a s a “sig nificant fla

w” in the c lassification of certa in imported merc handise a s had plaintiff “ conce ded,” in a fo otn ote , th a t th e c or

re c t c la ssi fi c a tio n of the me rc ha nd ise de pe nd e d o n th e mann e r i n w hic h it was imported. The Court denied defenda nt’s motion for rehe aringas the re fer ence d footnote did not actua lly stand for the proposition asserted a nd, so, did not alter the Court’s re asoning .] Dated: De cembe r 19, 2006 Kat te n Muc hin Zav is Ros e nm an LLP ( Mark S. Zolno , Eric R. Rock , and Da v id P . S

an de rs ) for the pla intiff. Peter D. Ke i s ler , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Barbara S. W

illiams , Attorney

in Charg e, I nternational Trade Field Of fice , C o mmercia l L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, United St ates Depa rtment of Just ice (

Ar thu r J . G rib bin and Bruce N. Stratv e rt); Off ice of the Assistant Chief Counsel, I nternational Trade L itigation, United States Customs and Bord er Protection ( Sheryl F. French ), of

c ouns e l, f

or the de fe nd ant. OR

DE R Def endant moves, pur suant to USCI T R. 59, for re consideration or rehear ing of a portion of the Court’s decision in Fuji America Corporation v. United States , 30 CI T _ _, Slip Op . 0 6- 11 6 ( July 26, 2006). The g ranting of a motion for r econside ration or r ehea ring lies “within the sound discretion of the Court.” See Paul Muller Industrie GmbH & Co. v. United States , 30 CI T __, 442 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 3 6 3 (2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g Union Camp Corp. v. United States , 21 CI T 371, 372, 963 F. Supp.Court No. 03-00126 Pag e 2

12 12 , 1 21 3 ( 19 97 ); Kerr-Mc GeeChem. Corp. v. United States , 14 CI T 582, 583 (1990))

. By its mot ion Defe ndant states that “[t]he purpose of this motion is to direct the Court’s attention to some material matter of l aw or fac t which has be en over looked in decidingthis action, and which, if it ha d been g iven consideration, would likely have broug ht a bout dif feren t re s ults.” De f. ’s M o t

. fo r R eh ’g ( “D ef

. ’s M o t

. ”) at 1 (c i t i n g Ugine &Alz Belgium, N.V. v. United States , 29 CI T _ _, Slip Op . 0 5- 11 3 ( Au g . 2 9, 20 05 ). Spe c if ic a lly , d e fe nd ant a

rgue s th at c e rt a in m e rc ha nd ise

a t is su e —“ fe e de rs ” —a

re “ imp or te d und e r t

wo dif fe re nt s c e na

ri os , some wi th the c hip pla c e rs wi th which they

operate, and some w ithout the chip placer s.” Id . at 4. De fe nd ant, c iti nga fo otn ote in plaintiff’s moving brief, postulates that plaintiff “appe ars not to have cha lleng ed the c lassification of the fe eder s when they

wer e imported with the chip place rs with which they operate, inasmuch a s it concede d that the classific at ion under those c ircumstance s would be controlled by the classificatio n o f t h e ch i p place rs.” Id . (citing Pl.’s Mem. Supp. S umm. J . at 33 n.2). De fenda nt

rea sons that plaintiff conce ded this issue beca use pl ai n t i ff ci t ed the r easoningin a Hea dquarte rs R u l i n g L ett er ( “Ruling L etter” ) that conta ins a “func tional unit” analy sis. Se e id .; s e e a l so HR L 965608 (Sep. 10, 2002). De fenda nt argues that, using the “conc eded” analy sis, feede rs “imported wi th” c hip pla c e rs c on sti tut e a “ fu nc tio na l un it” and , a s su c h, sh ou ld b e c la ssi fi e d und e r t he same subheading as chip place rs. The c ourt does not ag ree . I mportantly , as pointed out by plaintiff, the Rul ing L e tte r ci te d in

the fo otn ote in n o w ay

a dd re sse s w he the r c hip pla c e rs and fe e de rs c on sti tut e

a “func tional unit” when imported tog ether

. See Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’ s Mot. for Reh’gat 6. I nstead, the issue addr essed by

the Ruling L etter is whe ther a chip place r in and of i t s el f is a “f unctional unit.” See HRL965608 (stating , in section ti t l ed “Classification of Chip Placer s/Mounters” thatCourt No. 03-00126 Pag e 3

I n an y event, it i s doubtful that this i ssue ca rries muc h weig ht as it was “r aised” 1 exclusively in a footnote. The Court understands that footnotes are, at best, a means of cla rifying or re info rcinga point or points made in the text and not for ra ising ne w ar g uments or issues. A revie w of va

rious authorities bolsters this view. As stated by one: “Don’t count on rea ders to look at y our substantive footnotes. Most reade rs find shifting their attention up and dow n the pag e tiring and distrac ting. And the very fac t that the materia l is footnoted rather than in the body of the wr iting signa ls that the content is not of ce ntral importance

. . . . Some courts will disreg ard a rg uments raised exclusively

in footnotes. Br

y an A. Ga

rnet, T h e R e d b o o k , A M a n u a l o n L e g a l S t y le § 9.9 (2d ed. 2006). As stated by

another : “The pse udo-scholar ly approa ch of ta ckling substantive, sometimes quite subtle, themes and topics in the fine print o f fo o t n otes is a fier ce distra ction. Bur y ing a n argument in a footnot e, an d ex p ecting the r eade r to excavate it, is si mply inexcusable.” Tom Goldstein & Jethro K. L ieber man, TheLawy e r’

s G uid e to W rit ing W e ll 100 (2d ed. 2002) . I ndeed, wer e th e is s u e o f s u c h im p o rta n c e , th e Co u rt w o u ld e xp e c t it to b e f le s h e d o u t d

u r ing the normal course of brief

ing—w hich was not the c ase in the instant ac tion. Def endant a lso states that this court’s dec ision should be m o d ified to ref lect 2 classi fi ca t i o n o f t he subjec t mercha ndise “throug h the 8-dig it level.” See Def .’s Mot. at 7 (citing Ha rm on ize d T ari ff

Sc he du le of

the Un ite d St a te s ( “ HT SUS ” ) P re fa c e ; id . G e ne ra l Statis tic a l N ote 2) . Si nc e thi s matte r ha s b e e n a pp e a le d to the Court

of Ap pe a ls f

or the F e de ra l Cir c uit , a

nd be c a us e a de c isi on by tha t c ourt may , in itse lf

, modi fy the tari ff

c la ssi fi c a tio n o f t

he su bje c t me rc ha

nd ise , th is Court will re-visit this i ssue once the appe llate proc ess has run its cour se. “[t] he prote stant states that the subject mer chandise are functional unit s . . . .”). A s such, the Court finds that there was no “ mat er i al m at t er of law or fac t” that was ove rlooked in dec iding the classification of the fee ders whic h would alter the Court’s rea son ing. Acc ording ly , defe ndant’s 1 motion is denied. 2

/s/ R. Kenton Musgrave R

. Ke n t o nM u s gra v e, J u d ge Dated: Dec ember

19, 2006 New Y ork, Ne w York